Skip to main content
9:00 pm
changed during the period of 1945 to 1972, the different mechanical introductions, talking about the antibiotics, the pesticides, and all of that that came into being. >> and finally another book about the presidential election. why? >> this is the republican side of three to look at the three major candidates there. it's a full compressive look at just leading up to the 1960 election. :
9:01 pm
reinstating the fairness doctrine and silencing conservative talk radio. mr. jennings discusses his book with syndicated talk-show host monica crowley the >> host: i am monica crowley, the host of the nationally syndicated radio program, the monica crowley show also a panelist on the mclaughlin group and political and foreign affairs analyst for the fox news channel. i'm delighted to welcome to the
9:02 pm
program today brian jennings. brian is one of the nation's top talk radio programmers. he served more than a decade as the national vice president of talk programming for citadel broadcasting. he is an authority on talk radio. everybody in the industry knows him and respect him wide the and according to talkers magazine, he is one of the founding fathers of conservative talk radio. brian, welcome. >> guest: thank you. >> host: we are here to talk about your outstanding book, "censorship the threat to silence talk-radio the new fairness doctrine exposed." and here it is. brian, let me begin with just a personal bit of background on myself. i am a nationally syndicated radio host. >> guest: yes you are in need. and a good one. >> host: thank you very much. i will take the complement. i am increasingly alarmed as i know a lot of people are in the industry, people who listen to talk radio by what you write about and that is the first veto
9:03 pm
threat to the first amendment right of free speech. >> guest: it has been going on with an two decades even before president reagan lifted the fairness doctrine in 1987 but when he did conservative talk radio came out of the gates like wildfire. it was amazing to watch. i was there at the time. i worked 20 years under the fairness doctrine, 20 years outside of the fairness doctrine and i can tell you that it was a night and day difference in what we could do on the nation's airwaves. for the first time we had stations accepting talk radio as a true format. proof of the putting so to speak is that in 1987 there were only 125 radio stations during talk radio in america. now there are over 2,000 so you can't tell me lifting the fairness doctrine and was the wrong thing to do. >> host: let's get into the fairness doctrine right here in your subtitle the new fairness doctrine exposed. let's go back a little bit in
9:04 pm
time. tell us exactly the fairness doctrine was. >> guest: the fairness doctrine was an fcc, federal communications, regulation. 1949 it was established. it was established to force broadcasters to reach out, to seek out opposing viewpoints on controversial issues. back then and 1949 there were only 2,000 radio stations in america. there were only a few fledgling television stations in america, and a glimmer of hope for television network or to. there wasn't so much media back and of course we didn't have the internet, we didn't have the diversity of the media we have today so it could be argued to some degree the fairness doctrine was a fair thing back then because a few overloaded on media with a political ideology it could sway opinion no question with lack of media we had back then but today there are 13,000 reduced asians in
9:05 pm
america. there is the internet. we have dozens of cable news channels. we have networks, tv stations, many more newspapers and magazines. there can be no argument for need of diversity of viewpoints in america. we have it at the drop had. >> host: so given the contemporary context than the phrase fairness doctrine is a misnomer, isn't it? >> guest: it is so disguised and on a fair actually in this day and age that it should never be used. for some democrats to hide behind it and use it is absolutely disingenuous today. >> host: you mentioned it was dropped in 1987. president reagan was a leading force behind no longer enforcing the fairness doctrine. why did that come about? >> guest: the supreme court in 1968 evaluated a case against a
9:06 pm
radio station and suggested at that time that the fairness doctrine well maybe and chairman looked at it and commissioners looked at it over the years but it wasn't until reagan that the took this seriously and president reagan of course was a broadcaster from his early days at who radio with the free-market placement to free speech. and therefore his fcc repealed by a 4-1 vote back then and was the best thing that ever happened to free speech in america. for the first time, broadcasters , on an equal playing with our print brethren. >> host: after the end of the fairness doctrine, 1987, what happened to the radio airwaves? what kind of metamorphosis' did you see? >> guest: it was instant. i was involved in a talk-radio station in seattle washington back in 1988 called king 1090.
9:07 pm
very little radio station i might add and we can get into that story of a bit later. >> host: absolutely. >> guest: that immediately come the first out of the gate was rush limbaugh, and rush understood what it was too opinionated freely on the airwaves when he was in sacramento california he had to live under the fairness doctrine guidelines. when he located in sacramento he told me that it was amazing there was nobody doing political talks and he said this is a cakewalk, what form this is going to be. then he had to succumb to the fairness doctrine by giving an hour of a program to somebody in this community concerned about what he said so he had to move over and he says it was the most boring hour of retial i have ever done in my life and that is what was happening back then. there was no question about it. what we saw immediately was all of a sudden we could put commentators on the radio and
9:08 pm
have three opinions on the radio. we didn't have to act as moderator's anymore. talk radio was so boring in the 1980's you could report or lost ought or report any kind of matter like that. put it was share your favorite recipes -- there were some good programs. i don't want to denigrate talk radio back in. there was worse williams and sally jessy raphael and they did a good programs back then, all advice, not political. we stayed away from politics like the plague back then. >> host: you know it is amazing when you think back to 1987, pre-cable tv, he essentially pre-cnn although they were on the air they didn't have the audience they do today, pre-fox news certainly, pre-internet, pre-blogs so when rush limbaugh on the scene after the lifting of the fairness doctrine but he was able to pioneer and then all of the
9:09 pm
fellow conservative talk-show hosts like me, we were able to see the conservative point of view was not being expressed in any other media outlet, of newspapers, not broadcast television, and so it gave the conservative voice in place to be expressed. >> guest: finally. >> host: and the reason it turned into a commercial success, and i want to get into that with you momentarily, is because half of the country you could argue half of the country may be a little bit more because we still are a center-right nation felt that their views were now being expressed in the mainstream media and all of a sudden here comes a new form of media where their views are being expressed articulately by rush and others, so all of a sudden you have half the country may be more thinking we are not alone. our view planes are not crazy. we are not isolated and we are from the date. >> guest: yeah, we are finally validated. no question was one of the conservatives who through the
9:10 pm
80's was told i should not think the way i think and i certainly should not speak the way i spoke. and when rush came out of the gates i remember thinking to myself he is seeing what i think and what i feel and yet he is brave enough to say it. what is wrong with that picture? well, the fairness doctrine was lifted and all of a sudden we could do exactly that. it was an amazing time to watch conservative growth so quickly than because you're absolutely right and there are many research projects that back this up that most media is so liberal conservatives felt for years they had no validation in the media and that is why they are so loyal to talk radio today. it's the only avenue for them. that is why they are so loyal to fox news. they feel it's the only avenue for their validation and so they support that and that is why it is so strong in america today. >> host: that's right. >> guest: but you can go to
9:11 pm
many research projects, but you research center, this last election clearly showed the press favored obama. the media research center over the years has shown through many studies that white house correspondents, over 80% of them have been democrats. this last fall even though the ombudswoman for "the washington post" wrote in her paper, that her paper favored obama clearly over mccain. >> host: that's right. >> guest: and there are so many instances of media bias. talk radio is the only opposition to the bias and that is why it is done so well. if it hadn't been for talk radio, we would not have known the other side of the iraqi war. we would not have exposed the perils of national health care. we would have most likely had an immigration bill passing through the congress and senate. and without conservative talk radio, there would be no
9:12 pm
opposition to this and clearly, that is what the obama administration wants, no opposition. >> host: the ideological and was one part of the equation. the other part of the equation, brian, is the commercial part. because what the liberals don't want to deal with, what they don't want to see is that conservative talk radio and it came on the scene and even to this very day is a huge commercial success in terms of ratings and revenue. conservative talk radio makes money. >> guest: yes, it does. >> host: so in a private sector economy, if that is what we still have which is arguable, one of the things they want to tap down is this private sector success. >> guest: absolutely and that is what is so scary about this whole effort. there was a statement made by the acting fcc chairman, michael copps, spelled with to p's by the way, the to get that right, he has stated that if the market cannot produce what that market wants, in terms of the diversity of that market, then government has
9:13 pm
a legitimate role to play in regulation of speech. this, from the federal communications commission. to me that is one of the most arrogant statements about the free marketplace and free public determining for what it wants to hear, reid, and see. and for major bureaucrat to not understand the free marketplace determines free speech in america is absolutely incredulous in my opinion. >> host: how do they square that circle, brian? think about it. there are certain and very limited limitations on free speech for example you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you can't incite violence and even now there is eight speech laws on the books. but it is a very limited circumscription here on free speech. so, how are they going -- how are they getting away with this in modern times when we have so
9:14 pm
many of these other outlets for liberals become conservative speech and various other forms of speech? >> guest: wallets very subtle. it's very subtle. we have to go back to the history why they absolutely eight conservative talk radio, and they do. there's just no question about it. they felt that conservative talk radio was too powerful. they helped usher in the republican revolution and the early 90's for congress. >> host: which it did. >> guest: absolutely did. it helped defeat the democrats and 2,000 in 2004. there's no question about it. but they hated that. they absolutely hated that. when george bush won his second election day vowed they would take talk-radio down, and when the white house back in 2008. and about that time, 2004 there were many organizations form, media matters is one, media matters for america, for left organization with one intend to take conservative talk down.
9:15 pm
the use of statements, take our statements completely out of context, they misrepresent them, and de and embellished them with what they think is the truth. that organization is unbelievable. i have been a target of that organization. >> host: as satellite. >> guest: as most conservative talk-show hosts have. i was supervising a station in reno, nevada for citadel, kkoh, rated number one for eight years plus, phenomenal radio station. the afternoon host, bill meander's gets into the immigration issue in a major way and when he uses the word illegal, media matters' it's all over him. illegal immigration. they even went as far as sending an e-mail blast which is one of their tactics as you know, to their constituents to protest this at the radio station. so, we have a few protesters on the sidewalk and we have other people calling the radio station and calling advertisers to try to get those advertisers of the read your station.
9:16 pm
now here's the irony of the whole thing. most of those people haven't even heard the program, don't even know the radio station is. >> host: that's right. >> guest: they are like sheep and i think media matters is an organization -- they have their rights to free speech but so do we. >> host: this is what is so disturbing about what you just described that in the united states in the year 2009 in the 21st century that we have these kind of intimidation tactics and strong armed tactics to silence people with legitimate points of view, and nobody is going on the air yelling fire in a crowded theater. we are simply expressing a legitimate political point of view and what we have now is this fault police and on coming from the left, thought police, you mentioned or william, that is exactly what it is where you feel like you have to wait every word. if you come out with a joke -- those of us that to three hours on the air every day five times a week sometimes six days a week, you find yourself waiting every word may be restraining
9:17 pm
yourself, holding your tongue because you are afraid of the thought police might come at you or what would you have to say. put it and some form of perverse contant, miss characterize it, plastered all over the place and then you are going to lose revenue or your radio stations might get hurt. >> guest: i've given up on that. i don't care anymore. i state what i feel. and i have been attacked over so many years. i received literally hundreds and hundreds of hate letters from the far left when i program a radio station in seattle washington that perhaps is the very first all conservative radio station in america. i would take those letters and put them on the bulletin board for everybody to read. they were so incredulous and it was like a football team at halftime, hey, boys come here is what your opposition is saying about you, let's go beat them. we did, we went from number 23 in the market to number one in that radio station in less than three years. but the far left absolutely
9:18 pm
comes after conservative talk radio, and isn't it interesting that we don't advocate the same kind of intimidation on the left? we believe in free speech rights. but they come after us and try to shut us down through intimidation. through regulation and that is exactly what they are trying to do through the fcc. at the center of this whole debate is the center for american progress, the cap report authored by john podesta. john podesta was the transition chief for president obama. the capper report is basically the play book right now for the federal communications commission. and their reregulation of radio. and they are going to reregulate the media. they have stated in their 2008 platform that they need to clarify the public interest obligations. and president obama fever some two distinct means of doing that. one is diversity of media ownership. to raise localism and under the
9:19 pm
localism banner that is where we need to be very, very careful about this. >> host: so let's talk that each one of those. talk first about localism. tell us exactly what that means. >> guest: localism is a requirement in a regulation that the fcc has had for a number of years. localism is good and it is a good name. radio stations should reach out and be local. but what the fcc is contemplating doing is requiring a certain amount of programming to be local, requiring, not voluntary by the radio station. in other words a radio station in a small community that cannot afford to pay for a local personality, they cannot afford to be say 50% local or whatever the requirement might be for that reforestation would be put out of business because they can't afford that. they just cannot afford it. the market may not bear it. and so i think the fcc has to be very sensitive to this. again, that is a form of
9:20 pm
censorship because it pushes the ability of that station to syndicate a program and forces it into localism and the fcc says no, that isn't any kind of censorship whatsoever. i don't understand how they don't understand that or they just a way of moving over a syndicated conservative talk-show host, such as yourself, in favor of more localism. i agree that a station needs to be local, has a program director i absolutely required it of the stations i supervise. but it has to be something that is voluntary and is done by the free market place in america. >> host: and what about the concept of being commercially viable? you mentioned earlier in the interview that there were many times local programming that was boring as can be. and everybody would just turn off the radio because somebody was talking about eight cabinetry and nobody cared about
9:21 pm
that. so, isn't it -- it strikes me as inappropriate the federal government would come into some of these stations, especially the smaller ones but even the bigger ones like tebeau adc in new york, kabc and los angeles and tell them x amount of time needs to be devoted to local programming when perhaps for those stations or any station that might not be commercially viable. >> guest: commercially viable and interesting like you said. number one, it is hard to find good local talent in many communities in america. there's no question about it. but again, i stress that the fcc should back out of this area because it is regulation of speech. and for them not to admit that or understand that is incredulous. i just don't -- again, i think that this is an effort by the far left tumult say we are going to advocate a new fairness doctrine but they are going through the back door basically with fairness doctrine like
9:22 pm
requirements. same thing. >> host: do you think this is all part of an orchestrated attempt by the obama administration and the democrats at large to have super majorities in the congress because when i look at the landscape and we are talking about commercial viability here in the private sector, what i see is a massive government intervention into every nook and cranny of lives and the government intervention in the private sector is unprecedented. we just saw the government takeover of general motors, the government orchestration of the chrysler bankruptcy, government intervening financial sector with banks and shaking them down over the money and then they can't repay it when they want to. next up will be government intervention in the health care sector and the list goes on and on. so is this what we are talking about here part of a multipronged approach that none of this is random. none of this is off the cost, that it was all orchestrated to go all at one time so that all
9:23 pm
of our rights and abilities to succeed or achieve in the private sector are really being talked down? >> i have no question about it. i think you nailed it. i think that what this administration does is try to act so quickly with so many things that we don't have time to discuss what is going on. we don't have time to measure the consequences adequately and this was going on right under our noses and i will tell you how important this is to me and i hope to many americans is that if we regulate speech in america, what other rights do we have at that point? what other rights matter at that point because all rights we have as americans come from one thing and that is our three ability to speak and if we reregulate radio speech or television speech or any way regulate speech at all
9:24 pm
we are giving up our most important right in america we are giving a hour heart, our seĆ³ul at that point and that is why the book documents so many efforts that if our intimidation factor is that i have a hard time wondering why these people can call themselves americans. i really wonder. i've come to the conclusion, monica, that these people hate conservative values so much they want to destroy them and the way they can destroy them is to destroy conservative talk in america. they cut the head of the snake off so to speak and i am very afraid that we are giving up our rights that it's happening right under our noses and we are in peril. we are at the edge of tyranny. we really are. >> host: one of the ironies here is the left like to pride itself on the concept of tolerance. their tolerance and the expect
9:25 pm
everybody else to be tolerant and that is what the nation was built on. the nation was built on the concept of tolerance but with the left exercises and practices is intolerance. >> guest: total intolerance. it's hypocritical. when i was attacked in the 80's and 90's even by my employer back then, i looked up the word liberal, what does it mean. a liberal is a person who is open-minded about things. that is the definition i have always been told and used. there is nothing open-minded about going after a conservative viewpoint with intimidation. that is not open mind. >> host: does that strike you as a sense of fundamental insecurity on the part of the left? that they believe that their ideas are so weak or vulnerable or perhaps this country's center-right and their ideas will not be supported that because they cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas they
9:26 pm
need to put the first amendment in a vise and try to shut down conservative thoughts and expression? >> guest: i have no doubt about it because i believe most americans when it comes down to core values have some conservative values and a predominantly conservative values. i saw this in seattle when i program there. i was told by many people that conservative talk would never work there, that it is berkeley north and one of the most liberal areas in the united states, and it is, but you get outside of that core area of downtown seattle, the core metropolitan area, and immediately it turns more conservative because people are on japan doors. they understand what tax dollars are doing and they have to make payroll and as soon as the outer edges the city started listening to this conservative talk radio the ratings skyrocketed. i am convinced americans have core principles and i think that
9:27 pm
is why another reason why the format works so well is because it resonates with meaningful things in their lives. i was attacked viciously in seattle in fact i remember a distinct telephone call coming from a friend of mine who was the bureau chief of the associated press when we first went all talk on tv i and he said you can do that. that is not allowed. you can't possibly do that in america. the fcc would not allow that. and i said to him you are misinformed. the fairness doctrine was repealed about two years ago or three years ago, whenever the time frame was back then and they can't believe in america we can have absolute free speech and it's very scary thing to the left believe. they don't feel secure at all and because we are successful in talk radio they don't have a piece of that. they have all other media which they feel to recognize by the
9:28 pm
way interestingly enough. they absolutely fail to recognize it but they have not been able to compete well in the talk radio circles and it's very interesting point. >> host: brian, you mentioned the big station in seattle that new program and that in the immediate vicinity, the immediate urban neighborhoods, you know, people fought
9:29 pm
they don't want to admit its success because they have not been successful in talk radio. they hate this because conservative talk is free listened to and successful so far liberal talk radio has not been and in the book i encourage
9:30 pm
all of my liberal friends keep talking and earning your way. i am a champion of free speech. why don't they say the same thing to us? >> host: and again if they want -- if they honestly believe in the marketplace of ideas and strength of their ideas then certainly they might -- they might take you on your offer and they have tried on the airwaves and when we come back from the break i want to get into why you think liberal or progressive talk has not succeeded in america and i also want to delve a little bit more deeply into some of these back door initiatives that the left is trying to push through and now i suspect with a democratic president and these big democratic majorities in the congress that perhaps they are armed and dangerous. >> guest: they are locked and loaded. >> host: they are locked and loaded and have their resources and they also understand the political momentum is only going to be with them for so long that politics in america moves in cycles and they are not going to
9:31 pm
have this political capital to do this for much longer and that's why we have to watch. we are going to take a quick break and have more with brian jennings and his phenomenal book, "censorship the threat to silence talk radio." back right after this. >> "after words" and several other c-span programs are available for download at podcast. or with brian jennings and monica crowley in a minute. "after words" with brian jennings and p. jay crowley continues. >> host: i am monica crowley back with brian jennings whose new book is outstanding. it is called "censorship the
9:32 pm
threat to silence talk radio the new fairness doctrine exposed." brian, when we left off we were talking about the marketplace of ideas and how the left seems to think based on their behavior here that their ideas cannot compete, their ideas might be weak or fall a marble or perhaps because we still remain a center-right nation could not survive without all of the protections they are trying to build and to the system's one of which is to try to silence conservative points of view. what has been the track record of liberal or progressive talk in america? >> guest: from an organized standpoint, dismal. there are successful liberal talk stations in america. there is one and san francisco, kgo was considered liberal, and others. air america for instance was a dismal failure. its first time around they are trying to reorganize -- >> host: it went into bankruptcy didn't it?
9:33 pm
>> guest: they are trying to recover now. it's an absolute disaster. i tried as a programmer to establish liberal talk on a half dozen stations in my career all field and it was all just feel year. it was total failure. >> host: is that when the liberal freezes were on the air alone and how does that compare with a liberal voice with a conservative voice and i know because i was part of that kind of experiment on conservatives talk stations and cable networks and it doesn't seem to work. >> guest: it doesn't work that well at all when you combine the two back and forth. it's because liberals don't want to hear conservatives and conservatives don't want to hear liberals. the reason that we have all conservative stations and or all of liberal stations is because that is the formula that seems to work best for ratings in america and we have to generate ratings because so far we are the free market economy in
9:34 pm
america. we have to generate ratings for advertising revenue. i tried early in my career to be -- in fact i use the fox phrase fair and balanced, i use that on the air at kbi in seattle years ago and it did not work. it did not work. i really gave an effort. i had rush limbaugh on the air and covered a friend of ours, alan echols, a dear friend of mine and a great talk-show host. i value him immensely but it didn't work because the conservative audience wouldn't stick around. as soon as we figured that out and started programming of the way music programmer would program, you don't mix country music with jazz and you don't mix urban with pop, whatever it may be, we put conservatives all in the lineup and all of a sudden we have the conservative listeners from rush limbaugh listening lager throughout the day. the ratings took off like wildfire. on the station's i have tried
9:35 pm
liberal talk on, we have created the same environment but up against the conservative station it paled. it was not even close. part of my job as a national program director is to keep tabs on radio ratings nationwide. i look at markets where there's little talk, a year america or allah and other avenues of talk and the stations are often times rated 28, 29th, forget, 34 than the marketplace. you can't exist that way. that drives liberals knots. they cannot admit their ideas failed and the free-market please therefore what do they do? they run to daddy, the government -- >> host: baghdadi. terrie baghdadi. >> guest: yeah, big daddy and they want to get a fair we can't believe that and all of diverse america our point of view doesn't work. we don't accept that. that is even contained in the
9:36 pm
c.a.p. report, center for american progress by john podesta. the free-market places where ideas germinate, succeed or fail and we have to value that. >> host: now if the liberal point of view doesn't succeed in talk radio that is just one medium and that is what we are focused on because it fails. however the left has msnbc, "the washington post," "new york times," "boston globe," pretty much every newspaper with the exception of a few plus and time and newsweek and the list goes on and on, brian. so they are so focused on this one medium without taking a step back and looking at the whole array of other media outlets where their point of view is multi fold and expressed in every single outlet you cannot turn around, cannot go to a newsstand without seeing one of these liberal newspapers or news weeklies so they are focused on
9:37 pm
the one medium they cannot succeed when they have the advantage everywhere else. >> guest: they want it all, they've wanted for years and cannot stand to not have all and that is why we have to protect conservative talk radio because it is the only opposition left if we marginalize talk radio through the regulation of what ever is the public interest obligations of america through the airwaves we've given up freedom. we become homogenized as americans and at that point we are puppets and the state. there is no opposition. it is orwellian again. there is a country trying to do this right now if you read it is the country of argentina. the president is so angry at her media companies for the criticism that she wants to force more diversity of media ownership and it's exactly what of our government is trying to do at the same time. >> host: in fact you write about this in the book "censorship" and talk about these international examples what is happening here in america. you do write about canada and say it still looks like what
9:38 pm
canada is doing is leading the way for the left in this country and their movement against free speech. >> guest: my byrd, the canadian situation scares me to death. the canadian human rights tribunal, they even call them that, very powerful. our friend, mark stein, in his book "america alone," when he rode through mclean magazine, the protest went to petition to the human rights tribunals costing him hundreds of thousands of dollars in court and legal fees. i am not sure how much it cost him but it certainly did cost. it was an absolute affront to free speech in canada. it took months to clear that up and it wasn't just one human rights tribunal, it was british columbia, it was alberta, it was others, saskatchewan i believe as well. and the national the canadian
9:39 pm
human rights tribunal. that tribunal or those tribunals have censored pastors, canadian citizens, find in them for what they deem to be hate speech, speaking out against homosexuality and a marriage and so forth and we are seeing the same thing creep into the united states, absolutely. >> host: do we have any evidence, brian, the obama administration and the democrats in congress are really looking toward these international example? do we have concrete evidence they are watching what is happening in canada or argentina or western europe and literally taking that as a model for what they want to do? >> guest: i absolutely believe that to be the case. it's apparent the recent example of the united kingdom banning michael savage for his bombastic speech against radical islam, it is incredulous a country that purports to value free-speech
9:40 pm
would even consider that. in fact i defend michael savage in several instances in the book so i would presume that the united kingdom should ban the book. if they really follow consistency you would think that would be hate speech as well. we are seeing many examples of other organizations and assaults on free speech not just through the fcc but other organizations such as hispanic organizations and especially in los angeles working for the chicano studies group at ucla where they had allegedly isolated and 80 minute tape with three different shows, john and kenneth k. fy, michael savage who works with your network and also would dobbs, and in that 80 minutes of tape they claim to have 334 instances of hate speech. first of all who defines heat?
9:41 pm
there is a saying one man's cup of tea is another man's poison or something like that. and who defines that? who defines what is hateful and what is not? and i found it really interesting the hispanic groups that are suggesting this stated the value free speech, but -- >> host: there's always a but. >> guest: there's ever about, whenever you see that or hear it be very, very careful. free-speech can on the be free without that bought. >> host: on this point talking about political correctness and when it runs amok like this, it does turn into a form of censorship. and i think to the example of don imus who made infamous crack on the air, he was broadcast on msnbc, simulcast while during his nationally syndicated radio program and that kind of political correctness came down on him. the left got him out of there as fast as possible.
9:42 pm
the advertisers were squeezed and that's just one example of many of what exactly you're talking about and this gets into the back door approach the left is having to try to silence voices they disagree with. >> guest: there have been many of those examples of of america and don imus is probably the leading example, no question. yes, it was a stupid comment, absolutely. he acknowledged and apologized profusely. i think it was heartfelt in his apology. he is back talking where he should be. he does have his free-speech rights. there is common sense and i think most conservative talkers understand what that common sense is all about. there are liberal talk herself there who are vehement and heat for themselves and if we wanted to be the same as liberals and charged that we would do that but we are not. we believe in free speech and regulation. >> host: what about this idea of the double standard? so don imus does make a
9:43 pm
misguided remark and he does apologize and a boy, does he pay the ultimate price, he loses his job, loses his radio show, at least for awhile but somebody like want sikes, an african american comedian can stand up the white house correspondents' dinner and wish rush limbaugh dead and she gets laughed at. she doesn't lose any gigs, even the president of the united states last at bat so this is the environment we are dealing with. >> guest: it's very hypocritical. and as you noticed, rush did not comment on that. he didn't need to. eight tells the full story of what the far left really wants for america and they don't want conservative views. they hate conservative views and want to kill the conservative views are not america therefore they go after our talk show hosts. >> host: we are talking about soft censorship. let's talk about this hard censorships you talk about. do you think this democratic president with big majorities in congress will go out a full
9:44 pm
frontal reinstitution of the fairness doctrine or will they approach it from a different angle? >> guest: if they do they can expect 80 party that is incredulous. will be the biggest tea party this nation has ever seen. >> host: you ain't seen nothing yet, right? >> guest: you ain't seen nothing yet. they are not going to go through the front doors on this because a lot of balloons were put up about the fairness doctrine especially as the new president was coming into office in power earlier this year. former president bill clinton for example expressed his desire to see some kind of balance and fairness on talk radio and many other democrats launched into it. there have been many efforts the past couple of years to do the same thing. it's been going on basically since the early 90's when they wanted to return the doctrine that they figured it out and they knew all the time that it would be found unconstitutional in the court system. at least it would hope to be found unconstitutional because
9:45 pm
if it is and we are not the nation we thought we were. therefore they want to go through the back door and address the fairness doctrine and new clothes so to speak and that is what the ordering. >> host: why would juris doctor on a point to talk review and mossy to broadcast television or cable television or newspapers? >> guest: it would have to apply to television. >> host: broadcast television and cable television? >> guest: knott cable television. cable television itself regulated although there are democrats who would like to take a fairness doctrine to cable and satellite as well. no question about it. they are very radical. they are the speech centers from anacapa so what they have done, they basically are going in through the back door through the measures called localism and diversity of media ownership. the diversity of media ownership is intended to do one thing, force liberal viewpoints into conservative talk america. it's absolutely for that purpose
9:46 pm
and intention, again, democrats will not at that. they will not be truthful in their goals, but it's already started. it started in may with hearings organized by the acting fcc chairman michael copps. they have a group of 31 advisers who were there to try to figure out a way in which they could take media licenses from one group and give them to minorities and women. i think that is fine to have diversity in america but it has to be earned through the marketplace again. on a free-market place person and you cannot tell me that taking a license away from one group and giving it to a mother doesn't impact speech. it absolutely does. they cannot -- maybe they can -- claimed that it does not impact free speech but it does. >> host: this is a form of affirmative action. >> guest: forced affirmative action. >> host: let me ask you with the new fairness doctrine in the forms you're talking about apply to national public radio?
9:47 pm
which is taxpayer funded and quiet little as we know. so, npr is exempt from all of this. >> guest: absolutely. >> host: why? >> guest: it is their own turf. of course it would apply to them in the legal sense they could not pass a law or a regulation that would impact just conservative talk radio without impacting npr. >> host: 80 you and i could get a gig on npr. >> guest: i will be there with your shoulder to shoulder demanding equal time on every station. >> host: doesn't this just strike you as absolute, upside-down, alice in wonderland craziness where npr, a government-run entity on talk radio, far to the left that protected from this kind of imposition of fairness and whatever other euphemism they want to stifle free speech. >> guest: our dear friend,
9:48 pm
alan calms nailed it. he said we have to be careful for what we ask. and he is absolutely true because and right because it would impact national public radio potentially and all other liberal media potentially. and let's face it. again, they have control over most mainstream media. their faults permeate most mainstream media, so i think they are on the slippery slopes and the nice big time. >> host: you mentioned president about and he has got a little track record in talking about these issues and certainly he is a smart politician to the extent he will put people in place who will do the heavy lifting and dirty work for him so he can look like the good cop as opposed to john podesta or the head of the fcc will be the bad cop in this situation. is there -- first of all is there a public statement on the record by president obama on the fairness doctrine? >> guest: mysterious. two kinds i'm aware of.
9:49 pm
he says he does not favor the fairness doctrine. however, he does favor by your city of media ownership and diverse viewpoints on the airwaves, which we already have. and he favors localism and radio and tv, which by the way we already have. and the free marketplace determines that. he is very much on the record for these two new fairness doctrine like regulations without having to come out for the fairness doctrine. let me say this, too. i think this is very important. i have been accused of paranoid. i've been accused of manufactured controversy. i have two words for manufactured controversy: global warming, and i think those are serious words to take into consideration by you bet i am paranoid about speech. absolutely i am. there is nothing better to be paranoid about and free speech in america. it's our most important right. i wouldn't be as paranoid if
9:50 pm
house speaker nancy pelosi would allow a vote on the broadcaster freedom act which would forever band the fairness doctrine but she has not permitted a vote on that for two years and she is on record quoted as saying at work caucus, the interest of the caucus is in the reverse. nancy pelosi stands for regulation of speech on the airwaves. and i think america should turn the heat up on her office, call her out on this because if you are not for free speech, and she is clearly not by resisting this broadcast freedom act, which is sponsored by congressman mike pence and greg walden, to former broadcasters to understand what is at stake, if you aren't for that i don't know how she can look herself in the mirror. >> host: are their republican members of congress speaking out forcefully on this and do we have legislation either in the
9:51 pm
hopper or being considered here for and against what we are talking about? >> guest: yes, the two gentlemen i mentioned are the chief spokesman for the conservative talk radio side and that is congressman pence and walton. the understand what is at stake and there are others. is there regulations or legislation that would prevent this? yes. they would queue up legislation that would be shot down by the democrat-controlled majority in both houses, no question. the only thing that we really have here -- we don't even have a filibuster. we won't have a filibuster in this matter. if the only thing we have is a court system. and the court system is queued up and there are many legal centers cued up and ready to go with we get back to regulation speech. one is that thomas more lawsuit in detroit and they are representing michael savage at this point on the u.k. controversy where he cannot travel to the u.k. because he is too hateful in his speech. by the way he has never
9:52 pm
advocated violence. >> host: that's right. >> guest: yes his bombastic and many of us say tone it down, michael, a little bit, but he has got free-speech rights. >> host: that's right. let me ask you, the general listening public, what should there years be attuned to when they start seeing this kind of movement or their radio stations already anticipating that this might come down the pipe pretty soon and you agree it is going to happen what, within a year or a cure and a half? because democrats realize they don't have that much time, right? >> guest: certainly by that time, yes. maybe even sooner because the fcc is negative several commissioners right now obama must replace but it will soon have a 3-to democrat majority on the fcc and when it does i expect that in the next two months in that timeframe. but he will start to see at that
9:53 pm
point movement towards redefining the public interest obligations and the new chairman will be julius genachowski. he led the digital effort for obama's election campaign, very successful in what he did because he garnered, helped garner the youthful vote. this man absolutely is in the mold of diversity of ownership, opinion and you point and localism, no question about it, so those will be the two efforts led through the fcc. so i think it's right around a quarter. >> host: will this be a creeping kind of thing or in stand and do you see radio stations already starting to build and localism were put on a liberal hosts in anticipation? >> guest: i don't see the putting on of the posts so to speak but there is one group which is the largest retial company in america, krieger channel communications which has
9:54 pm
trying to get out in front of this by establishing programing advisory boards which the fcc clearly wants to get done through their localism mandates. and they want to be there doing it themselves rather than having government regulate, and to me programming advisory boards are a very scary thing in america and it is clearly -- >> host: again, orwellian. >> guest: it is very orwellian. i ready 98 page rulemakings report from the fcc which was issued january 24, 2008. and in this account of least eight references to establishing programming or come at the advisory boards for stations, and they leave language very very gray and and you this. they say should these members be appointed or should they be elected even in one sense.
9:55 pm
and then they state that stations that already have a formal let 53 board would be exempt from this. well, just by stating would be exempt means they are going to mandate it for anybody who doesn't do this right away. the free marketplace dictates what is popular and what is not. we already have our board of advisers as radio talk-show hosts. they are your listeners. the rate you through the arbitron surfaces and if your readings are bad, you are gone. that is just the way it is. and to establish a board of advisers at the very least is if you're looking over the shoulder of a broadcaster for fear of what he might say, what you might say at the very worst it could be censorship because of who is on the board. who appoints those members? does the radio station or the government? >> host: and there's a potential conflict of interest all over the place. let's try to get pro-active in the remaining minutes. what can any of us do to stop this attempt of putting the
9:56 pm
first amendment and a vice and let's begin with retial management. what can they do? >> guest: retial management needs to stand up for the first amendment, number one. they need to talk about the first amendment rights we as americans have. that's what i did. it finally got to me and i said i have to say something about this. i am in the position i can say something about this. i have no conflict of interest whatsoever and i can speak out loudly. we as americans have to realize this should not be a fight of conservatives against liberals. it shouldn't be a fight by conservatives and liberals against anybody who favors regulation of speech in america. and i would hope that number one, america would realize that and not allow to happen under their noses because this administration acts quickly and in a stultz manner in which it can happen and we don't even know that it's happened and until it is too late. and we have to be very aware of
9:57 pm
this. second thing is there are many groups out there right now which are leading the cost to protect speech went on the airwaves. one is the media research center. the media research center on have a lot of faith in. brent bozell does a fabulous job on our behalf, has a drive you can easily sign on line. they are going to deliver or have delivered at this point at least 400,000 signatures on line. there are others. there is which is a great organization to resist any kind of reregulation of speech on the radio, and there are others. i believe it is, that is another organization which is representing our rights as americans. so there are avenues you can protest through with an on-line petition. the other thing that i would suggest is that we have to demand that the broadcaster freedom act receives a vote,
9:58 pm
stand-up vote in congress on the house floor. and i think that we have to aim our criticism and desire for this vote to nancy pelosi, who has not allowed this vote for the last two years. i think it is reprehensible that she has done this. it is a simple, simple matter. if you believe in free speech rights of the airwaves, there is no reason, no reason whatsoever to get in front of this bill and not allow a vote on it. so, those are some things that we have to pay attention to. >> host: i can understand why people who are devoted to conservative talk radio would be passionate about this. my audience, your audience over the years. the general public, have you been hearing from the general public, liberals, moderates, independent as well as conservatives who you might expect? are you hearing from the general public a sense of outrage about what is going on here or is there a general sense of apathy? what is your feeling? >> guest: well, i think that by the mainstream public right
9:59 pm
now, there is a lack of awareness of what's going on in this regard. i think among conservative audience is there is a big awareness of what is going on. i have been at many rallies in america. i did a 20 market to work on this book, four of those rallies were absolutely huge. albuquerque, reno, boise and portland oregon. hundreds and hundreds of people turned out to talk about this issue and hear about this issue. it was very gratifying to see their interests and depth of knowledge on this issue. liberals for the most part and the book as we expected. and that is fine. but believe me, if we lose any free-speech rights in america through the reregulation in the public interest through the fcc, liberals are going to lose those rights as well because what is good for one is good for the other. it has to

Book TV After Words
CSPAN August 16, 2009 9:00pm-10:00pm EDT

Brian Jennings Education. (2009) Brian Jennings ('Censorship') interviewed by Monica Crowley.

TOPIC FREQUENCY Us 6, Fcc 5, Brian Jennings 5, Seattle 5, Npr 4, John Podesta 4, Crowley 4, Nancy Pelosi 3, United States 3, Canada 3, Don Imus 3, Obama Administration 2, Localism 2, United Kingdom 2, Msnbc 2, Michael Copps 2, Seattle Washington 2, Sacramento 2, Argentina 2, Washington 2
Network CSPAN
Duration 01:00:00
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 544
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 8/17/2009